Section 101:80.--And for this purpose have I established the

constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men, whom I raised

up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of

blood.

Section 42:18, 19.--And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou

shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in

this world, nor in the world to come.

And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall

die.

Verse 79.--And it shall come to pass, that if any persons among you

shall kill, they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to

the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness, and

it shall be proved according to the laws of the land.

THE LAW OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

In pursuance of, and in harmony with this scriptural doctrine, which

has been the righteous law from the days of Adam to the present

time, the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory

provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the

blood of their fellow man. This law, which is now the law of the State,

granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for

himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot, and thus have

his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far

as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost

without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death. This

is by the authority of the law of the land, not that of the Church.

This law was placed on the statutes through the efforts of the "Mormon"

legislators, and grants to the accused the right of jury trial. It is

from this that the vile charge, which you are pleased to repeat, has

been maliciously misconstrued by the enemies of the Church, who prefer

to believe a lie. When men accuse the Church of practicing "blood

atonement" on those who deny the faith, or, for that matter, on any

living creature, they know that they bear false witness, and they shall

stand condemned before the judgment seat of God.

PLURAL MARRIAGE

Since the action taken by the United States government, and also by the

Church, in regard to plural marriage, I shall not discuss its virtues

nor answer arguments in opposition to that principle as a principle of

our faith. As you, however, are reported to have said that "Brigham

Young introduced" that doctrine "in Salt Lake City," I would be pleased

if you would explain, as a matter of history, why Sidney Rigdon, before

"President Young introduced" the doctrine, declared that the principle

of plural marriage was introduced, to his knowledge, by Joseph Smith

the Prophet, and that he, Sidney Rigdon, rejected that doctrine and

"warned Joseph Smith and his family" that it would bring ruin upon

them. You will find this in the _Messenger and Advocate_, published

in June, 1846, volume 2, page 475, number 6. Will you kindly explain

why this same Sidney Rigdon practiced polygamy, which he so fervently

condemns? Will you kindly explain why Lyman Wight, James J. Strang,

Gladden Bishop, William Smith, and others, none of whom had much love

for President Young and did not follow him, also taught and practiced

polygamy _before plural marriage was "introduced by President Young_."

If you doubt this, I will gladly furnish you with the proof. Indeed,

you may find a great deal of it in the third volume of your church

history.

THE "SAINTS' HERALD" AS A WITNESS

If you believe your statement to be true, will you kindly explain the

following paragraph in the _Saints Herald_, your official organ, volume

1, page 9. It would be well for you to read the entire chapter, which

is entitled "polygamy." The quotation is:

"_The death of the prophet is one fact that has been realized, although

he abhorred and repented of this iniquity (meaning 'polygamy,') before

his death. This branch of the subject we shall leave to some of our

brethren, who are qualified to explain it satisfactorily_."

In the same volume, page 27, what is meant by the following?

"_He (Joseph Smith) caused the revelation on the subject ('polygamy')

to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned

himself into the arms of his enemies he said that he was going to

Carthage to die. At that time he also said that if it had not been for

that accursed spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that."

Kindly read the context_.

_There is more evidence that can be produced, but if you will explain

this it may suffice_.

In the light of the knowledge I have received and the evidence at my

command, I know that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no such statement

as the above, and that he did not have the revelation burned. _There

is, however, value in the above statements from your "Herald," for they

bear witness to the origin and introduction of the principle of plural

marriage, and the revelation concerning the same_.[2]

THE UTAH VISIT

In connection with this, let me call your attention to your visit to

Salt Lake City some three years ago. At that time you met President

Lorenzo Snow, a man whose veracity cannot justly be questioned; you

heard him bear his testimony to the effect that he was taught that

principle by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that the Prophet declared

to Lorenzo Snow that he had married his sister, Eliza R. Snow. You

met and conversed with Lucy Walker Smith, and she told you that she

was married to the Prophet Joseph Smith on the first day of May,

1843, in Nauvoo, Elder William Clayton performing the ceremony. You

met Catherine Phillips Smith, who told you she was married in August,

1843, in Nauvoo, to the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, his brother Joseph the

Prophet officiating in that ceremony. You will remember that the first

wives of both these men were living at the time. I hardly think these

testimonies have passed from your memory in so brief a time. I am

personally acquainted with these women, and know that they are truthful

and honest--honorable women, whose testimonies should be believed.

In the face of all this evidence, do you think it fair and consistent

for you and your fellow believers to constantly lay at the door of

President Young the responsibility for the "introduction of plural

marriage" and the "authorship" of the above mentioned revelation?

My letter is already long, but I desire to briefly mention another item

or two.

PRESIDENT SMITH'S DENIAL

In the interview you are made to say that while on your visit to Salt

Lake City, you spent a day and a half with Joseph F. Smith; that you

and he "differed on polygamy," and that you "told him it was vile and

wicked, always had been, and always would be." I took occasion to ask

my father if you and he had discussed polygamy at that time and if

you had uttered that above expression or any other of like nature. He

replied that he had no discussion with you on that subject; that you

did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy, either favorable

or otherwise; that your visit was a social one, and friendly, and

was not occupied by the discussion of any differences which may have

existed.

_It is true that President Young was elected president at Kanesville,

but on what grounds do you charge him with holding the office in

trust for the "dead president's son?" Do you not know that such a

statement--contrary to the written word--was antagonistic to the

teachings of President Young, as recorded in the "Times and Seasons,"

as well as since that Time_?

PRESIDENT YOUNG THE PROPHET'S FRIEND

_Will you please explain on what grounds you charge President Young as

being "under suspicion at the time of Joseph Smith's death?" Am I to

infer by this that you mean to convey the idea that Brigham Young was

in any way responsible for the death of Joseph Smith? The Prophet never

had a truer friend. You know that at the time of the martyrdom Brigham

Young was on a mission away from home. If this is the inference you

wish to convey, it is not only contemptible but viciously false_.[3]

With reference to my father's first wife, you say she died "broken

hearted and insane." If you mean to insinuate that this condition, if

true, was the result of any act whatever on the part of my father, it

is also scandalously false. I have good reason to believe that she died

neither broken hearted nor insane. If it were true, I would still think

that you, as a professed minister of the Gospel, might employ your time

to better advantage than as an aspersor or a scandal-monger.

Respectfully,

Joseph F. Smith, Jr.

Footnotes

1. This sentence in italics was omitted in Mr. Evans' publication of

the _entire matter_ in the _Zion's Ensign_, August 17th, 1905.

2. The quotations from the _Saints' Herald_ which are in Italics were

purposely omitted from Mr. Evans' "publication of the entire matter,"

as it appeared in the _Zion's Ensign_ of August 7, 1905. The reason for

the suppression of this evidence is easy to discern. The authorities of

the "Reorganization" have tried to destroy the evidence, that it could

not be circulated among their church members, therefore very few copies

of this particular _Herald_ can today be found.

3. These paragraphs in italics were also omitted from Mr. Evans'

"publication of the entire matter," as it appeared in the _Zion's

Ensign_ August 17, 1905.

MR. EVANS' LETTER

_Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Jr.:_

Sir:--Your open letter published in the Toronto _Star_ for February 25,

is before me. You say: "I desire to be fair, dispassionate and also

candid." Those who read your letter will see plainly that you have

mispresented the interview, my faith and the facts concerning my visit

to Salt Lake, and that you are guilty of a labored effort to cover up

the _true facts_ regarding "blood atonement," "polygamy," etc., and my

faith in the Book of Mormon. So much for those desires.

My position with regard to the Book of Mormon, and the name "Mormon,"

is too well known for you to blind the people concerning it. The

interview shows plainly in what sense "the term 'Mormon' is offensive

to us." Read it again, sir: "Because it is associated in the public

mind with the practices that I have specified." The abominations of

_Brighamism_; namely, polygamy, blood atonement, Adam-God,[1] and other

evils that have disgraced the name throughout civilization.

The true Church never has adopted the name "Mormon" as being the

proper name of the church. The Latter-day Saints were sometimes called

"Mormons" in derision, as you admit, because they believed in the

divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and some church members may

have been willing to be called "Mormon"; yet you "candidly (?) fairly,

dispassionately" ask me, "Why do you not discard the Book of Mormon

from whence the name is derived?" Now, sir, I profess to believe in the

divine authenticity of the Holy Bible; as well call me a Bible, because

I believe in the Bible,[2] as call me a Mormon because I believe in the

Book of Mormon.

The church that I have the honor to represent is incorporated under the

laws of the United States as "The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter Day Saints."

BLOOD ATONEMENT

There is not an honest thinking person on earth who is acquainted with

the faith of the church regarding the atonement of Jesus Christ but

that will say your attempt to misrepresent my faith in this regard is

diametrically opposite to your stated desire to be "fair, dispassionate

and candid." You know that a prominent article in the Epitome of

the Faith and Doctrine of the _true church_ reads as follows: "We

believe that through the atonement of Christ, all men may be saved by

obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." You know that the

true church believes in the atoning blood of Christ as stated in the

scriptures you cite in your letter, and yet you try to make out that

because we do not believe in the doctrine of blood atonement as taught

by Brigham Young and his successors in "Utah Mormonism," that we do not

believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the atonement of Christ is far above the doctrine of

blood atonement as taught by Brighamism. To prove this, I submit the

statements as made by Brigham Young and other leading members of the

Utah Church, as found in their sermons, printed by your church:

Brigham Young said, October 9, 1852: "What shall be done with the sheep

that stink the flock so? We will take them, I was going to say, and

cut off their tails two inches behind their ears; however I will use a

milder term, and say cut off their ears."--Journal of Discourses, vol.

1:213.

Brigham said again, March 27, 1853: "I say, rather than that apostates

should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or

die. (Great commotion in the congregation and a simultaneous burst

of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates,

clear out, or judgment will be put to the line and righteousness to

the plummet. (Voices generally, 'Go it, go it.') If you say it is all

right, raise your hands (all hands up). Let us call upon the Lord to

assist us in this and every good work."--Journal of Discourses, vol.

1:83.

Echoing what Brigham said, P. P. Pratt said, on March 27, 1853, "My

feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly so. * *

* I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they have

been faithfully warned. * * * It is too late in the day for _us_ to

stop and inquire whether such an outcast has the truth."--Journal of

Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 84, 86.

Elder Orson Hyde said April 9, 1853: "Suppose the shepherd should

discover a wolf approaching the flock, what would he be likely to do?

Why, we would suppose, if the wolf was within proper distance, that he

would kill him at once * * * kill him on the spot. * * * It would have

a tendency to place a terror on those who leave these parts, that may

prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or

shot down before the public."--Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:72, 73.

President Brigham Young preached, February 8, 1857, as follows "All

mankind love themselves; and let these principles be known by an

individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be

loving themselves even to an eternal exaltation. Will you love your

brothers and sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that

cannot be atoned for without the shedding of blood? That is what Jesus

Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in

their wickedness. He never intended any such thing.

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been

righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores

and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance in the

last resurrection if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled

upon the ground, as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now

angels to the devil, until our elder brother, Jesus Christ, raises them

up, conquers death, hell and the grave.[3] I have known a great many

men who have left this church, for whom there is no chance whatever for

exaltation; but if their blood had been spilt it would have been better

for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this

principle being in full force, but the time will come when the law of

God will be in full force.

"This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help

him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood

upon the ground in order that he may be saved, spill it."--Journal of

Discourses, vol. 4, p. 220, or Deseret News, vol. 6, p. 397.

President J. M. Grant said, September 21, 1856: "I say there are men

and women here that I would advise to go to the president immediately,

and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case, and

then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their

blood."--_Deseret News_, vol. 6, p. 235.

President Heber C. Kimball said; July 19, 1854: "It is believed in the

world that our females are all common women. Well, in one sense they

are common--that is, they are like all other women, I suppose, but they

are not unclean, for we wipe all unclean ones out of our midst; we not

only wipe them from our streets, but we wipe them out of existence. And

if the world wants to practice uncleanness, and bring their prostitutes

here, if they do not repent and forsake their sins, we will wipe the

evil out. We will not have them in this valley unless they repent, for

so help me God, while I live I will lend my hand to wipe such persons

out, and I know this people will."--_Deseret News_, August 16, 1854,

and _Millennial Star_, vol. 16, pages 738-9.

The above statements speak for themselves, and these were what I read

to the reporter. You ask, "Do you _know_ of anyone whose blood was

ever shed by the command of the church or members thereof to save his

soul?" To _know_ by hearing such a command given, or seeing a murder

committed, is one thing, to believe the evidence of many who have

testified is another. No sir, I was never present when such a command

was given, nor when murder was committed; but I have read that which

leads me to believe that under Brighamism, Utah was for years a land

of assassination and a field of blood. What of the Mountain Meadow

massacre--the destruction of the Aiken party; the dying confession of

Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the Danties? Alfred Henry

Lewis, writing in _Collier's Weekly_ for March 26, 1904, states:

"Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself at their

head, and when a man rebelled, _he had him murdered_, if one fled the

fold he was pursued and slain."

The world has recently read the testimony of persons under oath, in

Washington, who testified concerning the endowment oaths, so I will

forbear any further remarks on this subject.

POLYGAMY

Speaking of "plural marriage," you say, "I shall not discuss its

_virtues_." Surely that is kind. Let civilization give ear, Mr. Smith

calls that a virtue which wrecks the happiness of every woman who is

enslaved by it, that doctrine which permits Brighamites to live in what

they call marriage with three sisters at one time, with mother and

daughter at the same time. Your father, Joseph F. Smith, married and is

now living with _two sisters as wives_. I refer to Julina Lambson and

Edna Lambson, both bearing children to him; yet you call that system a

_virtue_.

I have no evidence that those men you refer to, as having practiced

polygamy _before Young was guilty, as stated by you_. But the following

evidence shows clearly that Brigham Young was under suspicion before

Joseph's death, and that he has since admitted that he had a revelation

on polygamy before the church knew anything of the doctrine:

In a speech of Brigham Young on June 21, 1874, (see _Deseret News_ of

July 1, 1874), we read the following statement relative to the origin

of this doctrine of polygamy:

While we were in England (in 1839 and 1840, I think) the Lord

manifested to me by vision and His Spirit, things that I did not

then understand. I never opened my mouth to anyone concerning them,

until I returned to Nauvoo; _Joseph had never mentioned this; there

had never been a thought of it in the church_ that I ever knew

anything about at that time;--but I had this for myself and kept it

for myself.--The Messenger, volume 1, page 29.

Well, no one need blame Joseph any more, Brigham is the self-confessed

channel through which polygamy was given to his people.

I here submit the testimony of Brigham Young's legal wife, who left him

after he was untrue to her. Testimony of Major Thomas Wanless, given to

R. C. Evans, his nephew, in the presence of Mrs. Wanless, Mrs. Evans

and her daughter, in St. Louis, Missouri, September 7, 1904:

I met Brigham Young's first and legal wife and her daughter in the

winter of 1860 and 1861, at Central City, Colorado; she told me

that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy; that he did not

teach, practice, or in any way endorse the doctrine of polygamy,

that he had nothing to do with the so-called revelation on

celestial marriage; that he had but one wife. My husband, Brigham

Young, Orson Pratt (she gave the name of another man whose name I

have forgotten) made up the revelation on celestial marriage.

Before they left Illinois some of them practiced polygamy. Brigham

Young went to Utah to reorganize the church and publicly introduced

polygamy, or to reorganize the Church on a polygamous basis.

She left Brigham Young, finally obtained a divorce from him, and

was then living with her daughter. Brigham sent the daughter money

according to an agreement. She told me they ought to have shot

Brigham Young in place of Joseph Smith.

This statement of Major Wanless that she was Brigham's first wife is

a mistake. Brigham married Miriam Works, October 8, 1824; she died

September 8, 1832. In February, 1834, he married May Ann Angel; she

was his _legal wife_, and perhaps is the one referred to by the Major.

It is quite pardonable in Major Wanless in getting Brigham's wives

mixed up. We opine poor Brigham was at his wit's end to keep the family

record correct himself.

Chambers' encyclopedia, volume 8, students' edition, confirms Mrs.

Young's statement, in part. It says, speaking of the practice of

polygamy: "Young, Pratt and Hyde are its true originators. Emma, wife

and widow of the prophet, stoutly denied that her husband had any wife

but herself. Young's revelation she declared to be a fraud."

From a host of other witnesses who testify that Brigham Young was the

man that introduced polygamy in the Church, I submit the statement of

another broken-hearted woman from the ranks of Brigham's Church. Fanny

Stenhouse says: "Polygamy was unheard of among the (English) Saints in

1849." (pages 45, 47, 48) "Tell It All," by Fanny Stenhouse. "In June

1850, I heard the first whisper of polygamy. In January, 1853, I first

saw the revelation on Polygamy; it was published in the _Millennial

Star_," (page 132).

"Out of thirty thousand Saints in England in 1853, 1776 had been

excommunicated for apostasy through polygamy, the president of the

conference was cut off," (page 160). When speaking regarding polygamy

she says: "They know that the only source of all their revelations is

the man BRIGHAM YOUNG," (page 190).

"Brigham has outraged decency and driven asunder the most sacred ties,

by his shameless introduction of polygamy," (page 273).

"There have been many apostates from the teachings of Joseph Smith in

early days, but of all apostates, Bro. Brigham is the chief," (page

614).

It is reported by Fanny Stenhouse, and many others, that Joseph Smith

said, "If ever the Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro. Brigham,

he would lead it to hell," (page 268).

Why did Joseph Smith a short time prior to his death make the above

and similar statements regarding the man Brigham Young? The reason is

plain. He too had doubtless heard some rumors as to his conduct and

secret teachings, and the evidence would seem to indicate that just

before his death he made a move to bring the guilty to judgment. We

will let William Marks, who was president of the Nauvoo Stake at the

time of Joseph Smith's death testify:

"A few days after this occurrence, I met with Bro. Joseph, he said

that he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the Church, and

we retired by ourselves; I will give his words _verbatim_ for they are

indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time

to have a talk with me on the subject of polygamy. He said it would

eventually prove the overthrow of the Church, and we should soon be

obliged to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put

down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there

must be every exertion to put it down. He said that he would go before

the congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High

Council, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression,

and I must sever them from the Church unless they made ample

satisfaction. There was much more said, but this was the substance. The

mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few days after, therefore

there was nothing done concerning it." (_Saints' Herald_, vol. 1, pp.

22, 23.)

President Marks, after Joseph Smith's death, made mention of the above

conversation; it was soon rumored that he was about to apostatize, and

that his statement was a tissue of lies." (See _Saints' Herald_, vol.

1, pp. 22, 23.)

Speaking of the revelation on polygamy, Marks said, "I never heard of

it during Joseph's life. It was evidently gotten up by Brigham Young

and some of the Twelve, after Joseph's death." (Briggs' Autobiography;

_Herald_ 1901.)

Now I propose to produce evidence showing that Joseph Smith and the

Church during his lifetime condemned polygamy in the strongest terms.

First, I submit the testimony of thirty-one witnesses as published by

the Church on October the 1st, 1842. We deem this sufficient to show

you where Joseph and Hyrum Smith stood on this question of polygamy.

"We, the undersigned members of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints, and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of

families, do hereby certify and declare, that we know of no other

rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of

Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. John C.

Bennett's secret wife system is a creature of his own make, as we know

of no such society in this place, nor never did."

This is signed by a number of the leading men of the Church, some of

the Twelve Apostles, some of the First Presidency of the Utah Church,

and a number of the leading men of the Church. A similar document is

signed by Emma Smith the wife of Joseph Smith, and a number of the

leading women of the Church, thirty-one witnesses in all.

Now I submit for your consideration a statement made by Joseph Smith

and his Brother Hyrum just a few months prior to their assassination.

They learned that a man up here in the state of Michigan was teaching

polygamy, and this is what they said about it: "As we have lately

been credibly informed that a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints, a man by the name of Hyrum Brown, has been teaching

polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of

Lapeer, state of Michigan, this is to notify him and the Church in

general that he has been cut off from the Church for his iniquity."

Signed, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presidents of the Church.

This was given in February, 1844. Joseph was killed four months after

that. Here he declares that polygamy is a crime, and the man was

excommunicated from the Church for preaching it. Now I want to give

you the testimony of George Q. Cannon, whom I met in Salt Lake City,

as one of the presidency of the Salt Lake Mormon Church: "A prevalent

idea has been that this prejudice against us owes its origin and

continuation to our belief in a plurality of wives. * * * Joseph and

Hyrum Smith were slain in the Carthage Jail, and hundreds of persons

were persecuted to death previous to the Church having any knowledge of

this doctrine."--_Journal of Discourses_, vol. 14, pages 165, 166.[4]

This being true, Joseph Smith was not guilty of the practice of

polygamy; he was killed before the people knew anything about polygamy.

This is the statement of George Q. Cannon. Let me strengthen this now

by the son-in-law of Brigham Young, H. B. Clawson:

"Polygamy at that time (that is at the time of Joseph Smith's death)

was not known among those of the Mormon faith. * * * The doctrine of

polygamy was not promulgated until they got to Salt Lake; not, in

fact, until some little time after they had arrived there." Salt Lake

_Herald_, February 9, 1882.[5]

Joseph Smith was killed in 1844. They arrived in Salt Lake the 24th of

July, 1847, and he says not until some little time after that was it

introduced. The little time was the 29th of August, 1852, eight years

and two months after the assassination of Joseph Smith.

We have Brigham Young himself on this. He being interviewed by

Senator Trumbull in 1869, said: "It (polygamy) was adopted by us as a

_necessity_ after we came here." Ah, there never was a greater truth

told in all the world than that. Polygamy was not an original tenet

of the Church, and Brigham Young says it was adopted as a _necessity_

after "we came here." The real facts are, Brigham Young, as I will show

from their own evidence, and a few other Elders were living vile lives

secretly, and to cover up the consequences of their bad conduct, as he

truthfully says in this "as a necessity"; yea, as a necessity polygamy

was introduced. But who will dare to blame Joseph Smith for their

introducing polygamy eight years after his death?

I have been careful to take these clippings right from their own

papers, so that they cannot say that we have changed the words or

anything of that kind. Here is another statement; this is found from

Elder Ephraim Jenson:

"Polygamy was not practiced by the Mormons prior to and at the time of

the execution of Joseph Smith, who was executed at Nauvoo, Illinois.

* * * Fourth, that only three per cent of the Mormon men practiced

polygamy, a proof itself that it was not essential to the creed."--_The

Yeoman's Shield._

Here is another one:

"Go back to the foundation of our Church, April 6, 1830, there was no

polygamy practiced or taught in Mormon literature until five years

after that band of persecuted Saints reached Utah." _New York Herald_,

January 8, 1900.[6]

This is by Elder Whitaker, who knew who _did_ introduce this polygamy.

Now I might introduce dozens and dozens of witnesses to prove that

Joseph Smith had nothing to do with it. Well, who did it? Here is

what the Apostle's wife says of it: "How then, asked the reader, did

polygamy originate? It was born in the vile and lustful brain of

Brigham Young, and was grafted on the faith to gratify his sensual

bestiality."[7] (Mysteries of Mormonism, pp. 16, 17.)

One of the Mormon wives said that, and she ought to know whereof she

affirms.

We have learned from the above statements that polygamy was not taught

or practiced by Joseph Smith, but was introduced into an apostate

branch of the church, after his death, as is admitted by Brigham Young

and others of his followers.

Having read the works of the church for over a quarter of a century. I

confidently affirm that there is not a single word, in a single sermon,

lecture, statement, newspaper or church publication printed during the

lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith wherever he, by word, has endorsed

the doctrine of plurality of wives; not a single statement; and there

is no Salt Lake Mormon breathing who can produce one and prove its

authenticity.

But suppose you could prove that Joseph Smith secretly taught and

practiced polygamy, that would not make it a Christian doctrine. If

Joseph Smith secretly taught, practiced, or endorsed the doctrine of

polygamy, he did it contrary to all the revelations given for the

government of the church in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and

Covenants; contrary to all his sermons, speeches, and public teachings;

and he was a criminal before the law of his country, a base hypocrite

before the God whom he openly worshiped, a despicable traitor to the

woman whom he claimed to love and cherish as his wife, and was untrue

to all the sacred principles of fidelity and integrity which he evinced

in all his public utterances and conduct.

In the face of all this, the wife and children of Joseph Smith,

together with thousands of people who knew him in life, refuse to

believe the contradictory statements of Brigham Young and others who

are wallowing in the mire of polygamy.

MY VISIT TO UTAH

If your father denies that he and I discussed the doctrine of polygamy,

all I have to say about it is, that what he states is untrue. Here are

a few points that may help him to remember what was said and done:

When talking with Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City two years ago,

he brought up a number of witnesses and I examined them--that is, he

repeated the testimony of some who had testified. He finally said, "I

can produce a living woman who will testify that Joseph Smith was a

polygamist, and she knew it." I said, "Bring her along here and let

us examine her." Well, I met "Aunt Lucy" Walker Kimball, to whom you

refer, and we talked the matter over, and here is the one point to

which I want to draw your attention, to show how these poor dupes of

Brigham Young may be led. Coming to the testimony of Emma Smith, I

said, "You were personally acquainted with Emma Smith?" "Yes." "What

have you to say as to her integrity, as to her fidelity and honor?" The

old woman looked me fair in the face and said, "Emma Smith was one of

God's noble women--she was truth personified; and anything that Emma

Smith may say you can bank on it until the day of your death." "Well,"

I said, "she testifies that her husband never had any wife but her; she

testifies that she never heard of that revelation on polygamy until you

folks had gone to Salt Lake; she testifies she never saw it, and she

testifies that it is an unmitigated falsehood manufactured by Brigham

Young; that he stated that she had the revelation and burned it. Now

what have you to say to that?" I said. She looked me fair in the face

and said, "You can afford to build on anything that Emma Smith has to

say." "Thank you," said I.

It is true that she told me she was married to Joseph Smith May 1,

1843; but when I showed her that the so-called revelation permitting a

plurality of wives was dated July 12, 1843, and referred to her former

testimony as given in the _Historical Record_, and that given under

oath in the Temple Lot suit, she was confounded. I felt sorry for the

old lady as she sat silent and confounded.

It is true that I saw a very old lady in your father's parlor, as

she came slowly in for prayers. Your father said, "This is Catherine

Phillips Smith. She was married to my father, Hyrum Smith, and she has

never married since. I am not sure that the old lady heard a word. It

is certain that _she did not testify to me_, but it was your father who

made the statement, and at once called us to prayer, thus preventing me

from speaking to the old lady.

Lorenzo Snow did testify to me, as stated; but then and there, in

the presence of Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon, I showed _his

testimony to be false, by his own evidence_, when given _under oath_,

and _by his sister's statement signed in 1842_. At this, Snow, Cannon

and Smith were all much annoyed. So much for your father's statement,

which says "you did not say one word to him in relation to polygamy."

YOUR FATHER'S FIRST WIFE

You seem to feel sore over the statement that your father's "first wife

died broken hearted and insane"; and you add, "If you mean to insinuate

that this condition, if true, was the result of any act whatever on

the part of my father, it is also slanderously false." I insinuate

nothing; let the public judge the facts. Your father's first wife was

his cousin; she refused to consent to additional wives, and when he

persisted in marrying the Lambson sisters, she obtained a divorce in

California. Julina and Edna Lambson were sisters and were married to

Joseph F. Smith on the same day.[8]

Number of wives married to Joseph F. Smith since 1865: 6

Number of children born to him in 38 years: 42

Number of children born since plural marriage was prohibited in 1890: 13

Children of Julina Lambson Smith: 2

Children of Sarah Richards Smith: 2

Children of Edna Lambson Smith: 2

Children of Alice Kimball Smith: 3

Children of Mary Schwartz Smith: 4

Estimated income available for supporting five establishments: $75,000

Corporations, banks and factories of which Joseph F. Smith is a

director: 20

The only Mormon Apostle who surpasses the record of President

Smith is M. W. Merrill, with 8 wives, 45 children, and 156

grandchildren.--_Collier's_ for March 26, 1894 [1904].

* * * * *

While in Utah I was informed that your father's first wife died broken

hearted and insane. God and civilization know that a woman who loved

her husband from youth up has enough to break her heart and send her

insane when her husband will marry two other women, both sisters, in

one day.

Perhaps you will be assisted to view the matter as I do, should you

read the following in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:6, 7. Here it is

stated, in consequence of polygamy, "ye have broken the hearts of

your tender wives." Does this make the prophet an asperser or a

scandalmonger?

I have answered your letter as it appeared in the Toronto _Star_ as

fully as space would permit.

Respectfully,

R. C. Evans.

Toronto, Ontario, March 1, 1905.[9]

Footnotes

1. The teachings of the Latter-day Saints in relation to the doctrine

of the Godhead are clearly set forth in Elder B. H. Roberts' valuable

work, "Mormon Doctrine of Deity." For the belief of the "Mormon" people

regarding Adam and his place in the universe, attention is called

especially to chapters one, five and six of that work; also to Doctrine

and Covenants, sec. 78:15-18, sec. 107:53-57 and Daniel 7:9-14. In

relation to this matter I quote the following from the remarks of

President Anthon H. Lund delivered at the General Conference, October

6, 1902.

"Some there are who follow our Elders, and after they have preached the

principles of salvation, these men get up and charge that the Elders

do not believe in God, but that they believe in Adam as their God,

and they will bring up a few passages from sermons delivered by this

or that man in the Church to substantiate this charge. Now, we are

not ashamed of the glorious doctrine of eternal progression, that man

may attain the position of those to whom came the word of God, that

is gods. When Jesus was preaching unto the Jews on one occasion they

stoned Him, and He wanted to know if they stoned Him for the good works

He had been doing. Oh, no, they say, 'for the good work we stone thee

not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest

thyself God.'"

He quoted the 33rd to 37th verses of the 10th chapter of the Gospel of

St. John, and said:

"We believe that there are gods as the Savior quoted. He repeated what

was written in the law, and he did not say that it was wrong, but used

it as an argument against them (The Jews.) While, however, we believe

as the scripture states, that there are more gods, to us there is but

one God. We worship the God that created the heavens and the earth.

We worship the same God that came to our first parents in the Garden

of Eden. In the revelation contained in section 116 of the Book of

Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks concerning Adam-ondi-Ahman, 'the

place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the ancient of days

shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the Prophet.' In the 107th section

the Lord speaks of Adam as Michael, the Prince, the Archangel, and

says that he shall be a prince over the nations forever. We may with

perfect propriety call him Prince, the Ancient of Days, or even God in

the meaning of the words of Christ, which I have just quoted. When our

missionaries are met with these sophistries and with isolated extracts

from sermons we say to them anything that is a tenet of our religion

must come through revelation and be sustained by the Church, and they

need not do battle for anything outside of the works, that have been

accepted by the Church as a body."

2. If popular custom had designated the true believers of the Bible as

"Bibles" as a term of distinction from other worshippers, there is no

reason why a true believer should be offended even at that appellation

but rather honored. Mr. Evans, without doubt, is not ashamed of the

name "Christian," yet this term, like that of "Mormon" was first

applied to the followers of Christ in derision, "because it was

associated in the public mind with the practices" of the early Saints,

which practices in that day were looked on as "abominations."

3. This is a misquotation, it should be: "I could refer you to plenty

of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone

for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom

there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be)

if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as

a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil,

until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up--conquers death,

hell and the grave."

In that same discourse President Young declares that those who were

"righteously slain" were the wicked that the "Lord had to slay" in

ancient Israel. There is not one word in that discourse to indicate

that those who were slain to "atone for their sins" were killed in

Utah; but to the contrary they were ancient inhabitants of the earth,

viz., the antediluvians who perished in the flood, the inhabitants

of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Jericho and the cities destroyed by the

Israelites; the prophets of Baal whom Elijah slew (I Kings 18:40) and

a host of others of that class and the class to whom the one belonged

of whom the Savior said: "It were better for him that a millstone

were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of

the sea." President Young's remarks agree with those of Peter when he

declared that the Jews who were guilty of assenting to the crucifixion

of Christ could not be baptized nor have their "sins blotted out" until

the "times of refreshing shall come," which was at the time of the

"restitution of all things."--Acts 3:19-21.

4. In extreme haste here to make a point, Mr. Evans left in the

middle of a sentence and hurried on to the next page to complete the

expression he desired to convey. This is what President Cannon said:

"A prevalent idea has been that this prejudice against us owes its

origin and continuation to our belief in a plurality of wives; but when

it is recollected that the mobbings, drivings, and expulsions from

cities, counties and states which we have endured, and our exodus to

these mountains all took place before the revelation of that doctrine

was PUBLICLY known, it will be seen at once that our belief in it has

not been the cause of persecution." Now, I ask, is it not plain to

see why his quotation stopped in the middle of a sentence? The Saints

all know that President George Q. Cannon was always faithful to his

testimony that plural marriage was introduced by the Prophet Joseph

Smith. Latter-day Saints generally declare that this doctrine was not

_publicly_ known in the days of Joseph the Seer, but that it was taught

by him to his trusted friends. When this fact is known the alleged

quotations which follow, purported to be from H. B. Clawson, Ephraim

Jensen and "Elder Whitaker" lose their force.

5. This is not in the Salt Lake Herald of February 9, 1852.

6. The following is the Brooklyn _Citizen's_ report of that same

discourse from which Mr. Evans quotes his passage as given in the New

York _Herald_: Elder Whitaker said: "The people of the East have been

led to believe that polygamy was alone responsible for all the troubles

of the Mormons, but the fact remains, that as the fight was waged

against Jesus Christ, against his followers, and against all great men

for declaring the truth, so the same spirit is manifest now; but the

Mormons will humbly seek those willing to accept the truths inspired

of God, leaving the justice of their cause to be vindicated by honest

investigation and time. The fight is directed against the doctrine of

the Mormon Church, though polygamy has done such yeoman service in

arousing public sentiment, to attain certain ends unworthy of honest

men. The crusaders have kept the public mind from the real cause of

the attack. From the time the Church was organized in 1830-47, when

the people, after many previous drivings, persecutions, mobbings and

cruel mockings, were driven to Utah, the cry of polygamy was never made

a cause of their persecutions; indeed, that subject was not committed

in writing until 1843, never published to the world until 1852, and

was abandoned by the issuance of the 'Manifesto' of President Wilford

Woodruff, in 1890, since which time not one polygamous marriage has

been solemnized; but those having wives at that time were never asked,

and it was never expected they would abandon them, and when death

brings such relations to a close, there will be no polygamy among the

Mormons." The Brooklyn _Citizen_, Monday, January 8, 1900.

Why Mr. Evans accepted the brief extract from the New York _Herald_ in

preference to the full account in the Brooklyn _Citizen_ will require

no comment, but it certainly does appear that Elder Whitaker _did_ know

who introduced "polygamy."

As I do not have the Yeoman's _Shield_ and am not in communication

with Elder Ephraim Jenson, I cannot vouch for his remarks, but feel

safe in saying that if the whole report were published, his testimony

would agree with that of Elder Whitaker as published in the Brooklyn

_Citizen_.

7. In quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's

Wife," Mr. Evans reveals the character of his "dozens and dozens of

witnesses." The reader will perceive that he depends largely on the

most bitter anti-"Mormons" and apostates for his "evidence," but in

quoting from "The Mysteries of Mormonism, by an Apostle's Wife," he

certainly reaches the climax of this base testimony. This work was

published in 1882, by Richard K. Fox, proprietor of the notorious

_Police Gazette_. The author of these "Mysteries," undoubtedly a

man, assumes the title of "An Apostle's Wife," in order to hide his

perfidy. The work is one of the vilest and most contemptible of all

anti-"Mormon" publications, and is most bitter in its denunciation of

the Prophet Joseph Smith. In it he is called a "lusty toper," "the

worst of a bad breed," "an ignorant, brutal loafer," "immoral, false

and fraudulent," and the author says, "_this_ is the man who founded

what he dared to call a faith, and grafted on the United States the

religion of licentiousness and bodily lust known as Mormonism." An

apology is perhaps due for even referring to this matter, but since Mr.

Evans makes this work one of the chief of his "dozens and dozens of

witnesses," I feel that he should be exposed. He professes to believe

in the divine mission of Joseph Smith, and yet calls upon us to accept

the wicked falsehoods of this disreputable witness, whom he declares

"_ought to know whereof she affirms_." Shame upon the man who draws his

inspiration from such a source!

8. This whole statement is absolutely false, and there was not the

least shadow of reason for uttering it. President Smith's first wife

did not refuse to consent to additional wives. He did not marry two

sisters on the same day. In depending on the unreliable Alfred Henry

Lewis for his argument, Mr. Evans shows the desperate weakness of his

position. It would be a hard matter to squeeze more falsehoods in the

space occupied by the article of A. H. Lewis, from which Mr. Evans

quotes so faithfully.

9. This letter is dated March 1, 1905, but was not written until

sometime after April 19, 1905, for on the latter date Mr. Evans wrote:

"You may look for reply to your letter as it appeared in the Toronto

_Star_, as soon as I have time to reply thereto." This reply was

received May 5, 1905.

A REJOINDER TO MR. R. C. EVANS' LETTER

Salt Lake City, May 23, 1905.

_Mr. R. C. Evans_,

_Counselor in Presidency of Reorganized Church_.

Sir:--Your reply to my open letter of February 17 was received May

5. Whether I was "fair, dispassionate and also candid" in my letter,

or, as you seem to think, "guilty of a labored effort to cover up the

true facts regarding 'blood atonement, polygamy, etc.'" and "your

faith"--which was not discussed--I am perfectly willing to leave to the

judgment of "those who read" the same in the Toronto _Star_. So on this

point we may both rest satisfied.

BLOOD ATONEMENT

I will now consider your "labored effort to cover up the _true facts_

regarding blood atonement."

In my letter I candidly placed the true belief and teachings of the

Latter-day Saints in relation to this doctrine before you. This fact

appears to be displeasing to you, as it overturns your conclusions

and accusations against our people. If you desire to know the correct

position of the Church on this doctrine, I would recommend a careful

study of John Taylor's _Meditation and Atonement_ and Charles W.

Penrose's _Blood Atonement_, which was published in answer to such

wicked misrepresentations as I claim you have made in relation to this

principle and our belief in relation thereto. There is no reason for

any person to misunderstand our position, unless he desires to do so.

I claim, too, that we are in a better position to teach that which

we believe than is the stranger who attempts to present our case,

especially if he is antagonistic or unfriendly.

If you do not believe the doctrine of blood atonement as that doctrine

is taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which

church you are pleased to call "Utah Mormonism," then I say that you

_do not_ believe in the atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To this I will refer later.

You delight--as all anti-"Mormons" do--in referring to statements

made by President Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant and others during

the troublous times preceding the advent of Johnston's army into

Utah. I see, too, that like many others, you place your own _desired_

interpretation on their remarks, place them before the public in a

garbled state, taking care to give the darkest interpretation possible

from which the public may gather false conclusions. You take great

pains to cover up the conditions prevailing which called forth such

extreme and in some instances unwise remarks. Conditions in some

respects akin to those surrounding the Saints in Missouri in 1838-39

when other unwise remarks were made by members of the leading quorums

of the Church, but in a sense justifiable and which should be condoned

under the trying circumstances that called them forth.[1]

THE CHURCH JUDGED FROM ITS ACCEPTED STANDARDS

Writing on this subject Elder B. H. Roberts, in his criticism on Harry

Leon Wilson's plagarisms in his _Lions of the Lord_, declares the

position taken by members of the Church and all fair-minded men in

these words:

"The justice of Burke's assertion has never been questioned, and

without any wresting whatever it may be applied to "Mormon" leaders

who sometimes spoke and acted under the recollection of rank

injustice perpetrated against themselves and their people; or to

rebuke rising evils against which their souls revolted."

Even the president of the Reorganized Church recognized this fact in

his answer to _The American Baptist_, wherein he said:

"Whoever counseled or did evil in those times (in Missouri) are

responsible, personally, therefor; but the church, as such is no

more responsible for it than were the early Christians for Peter's

attempt to kill the high priest's servant when he cut off his

ear with his sword. The church, as such, should be judged by its

authorized doctrines and deeds, and not by the unauthorized sayings

or doings of some or many of its members or ministers.

It is not to be wondered at that in those times when the embryo

authors and abettors of the "Border Ruffianism" that reigned in

Missouri and Kansas from 1854 to 1865 had matters all their own

way, that some of the Saints, vexed, confused and excited, should

have done many things unwisely and wrongfully, and contrary to the

law of God."--_Saints' Herald_, 37:51.

With this I heartily agree.

Now, when the statements were made, which you in a garbled manner both

quote and misquote, there was in Utah a class of individuals who spent

the greater part of their time in circulating wicked and malicious

reports about the Saints, threatening their lives, committing crimes

and attempting to make the Saints their scape-goats. The officers of

the law were General Government officials appointed by the President

of the United States, and I am sorry to say, some of these were among

the chief villifiers of the people. The most damnable and bloodthirsty

falsehoods were concocted and served up to the people of the United

States to stir them up to anger against the "despised Mormons." Almost

every crime that was committed within a thousand miles of Salt Lake

City was charged to the leaders of the "Mormon" people and became the

foundation of a multitude of anti-"Mormon" publications that still

flood the world. Because of these false and highly colored tales, in

1857--one year later than the time that most of the utterances were

given on which you so delight to dwell--the Government of the United

States sent an army to suppress in Utah a rebellion that never existed,

and forced the Saints to defend themselves. When the Government found

out how it had blundered it was humiliated.

Now, in brief, these were the conditions at the time, and is it any

wonder that unwise and even harsh things were said? The wonder is

that the people bore it as patiently as they did. The officers were

non-"Mormons," the Territory was under Federal control and contained

many Gentiles, many of whom were most bitter in their feelings and

ever ready to accuse the Saints of crime. The government was strong

enough to enforce the law if broken. Now, I ask you if you believe the

horrors, as they have been pictured, could have existed under such

conditions?

Such a state of affairs would have been a reproach and a shame to the

American government. And no such state of affairs existed.

The conditions at the time led Jacob Forney, superintendent of Indian

affairs in Utah, to declare in 1869:

I fear, and I regret to say it, that with certain parties here

there is a greater anxiety to connect Brigham Young and other

Church dignitaries with every criminal offense than dilgent

endeavor to punish the actual perpetrators of crime.

Bancroft's History of Utah, p. 561.

Whitney's History of Utah, p. 108, vol. 1.

Mr. Forney was a Gentile official and the truth of this statement can

be relied upon.

This being the case, Brigham Young and the "Mormon" people could not

have engaged in the crimes charged against them.

In connection with this let me quote from Bancroft:

It is not true that Mormons are not good citizens, lawabiding

and patriotic. Even when hunted down, and robbed and butchered

by the enemies to their faith, they have not retaliated. On this

score they are naturally very sore. When deprived of those sacred

rights given to them in common with all American citizens, when

disfranchised, their homes broken up, their families scattered,

their husband and father seized, fined and imprisoned, they have

not defended themselves by violence but have left their cause to

God and their country.--History of Utah, pp. 390-392.

Again, I repeat, that the presence in Utah of apostates and

anti-"Mormons" from the beginning and "that there are men living in

Utah today who left the Church in the earliest history of our State,

who feel as secure and are just as secure and free from molestation

from their former associates as you or any other man could be," proves

the falseness of the malicious accusation that "Utah was for years a

land of assassination and a field of blood."

MR. EVANS' FALSE QUOTATIONS

"What shall be done with the sheep that stink the flock so? We will

take them, I was going to say, and cut off their tails two inches

behind their ears; however I will use a milder term, and say cut

off their ears."

Your conclusion is most certainly far fetched. Had you continued the

quotation your attempt would have appeared even more ridiculous. The

next sentence is:

"But instead of doing this, we will try to cleanse them; and will

wash them with soap; that will come nigh taking off the skin; we

will then apply a little Scotch snuff, and a little tobacco, and

wash them again until we make them clean."

And you try to make this appear as threatening life! It is apparent

that your sense of humor has been sadly neglected. This whole passage

is humorous and you make yourself ridiculous by not having discovered

it.

Again from Parley P. Pratt, you quote:

"My feelings are with those who have spoken, decidedly and firmly

so."

This from page 84. Then you skip to page 86 and add:

"I need not repeat their doom, it has been told here today, they

have been faithfully warned."

Then three paragraphs off, the following:

"It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such

an outcast has the truth."

This method of proving things reminds me of the reason why you should

be hanged:

And Judas "went out and hanged himself."

"Go thou and do likewise."

Now let me quote some extracts from this discourse which you purposely

left out.

"Sooner than be subjected to a repetition of these wrongs, _I

for one_, would rather march out today and be shot down. These

are my feelings, and have been for some time. Talk about liberty

of conscience! Have not men liberty of conscience here? Yes. The

Presbyterian, Methodists, Quakers, etc., have _here_ the liberty to

worship God in their own way, and so has every man in the world.

People have the privilege of apostatizing from this Church and

worshiping devils, snakes, toads, or geese, if they please, and

only let their neighbors alone. But they have not the privilege

to disturb the peace, nor to endanger life or liberty; that is

the idea. If they will take that privilege, _I need not repeat

their doom, it has been told here today, they have been faithfully

warned_."

Again:

"He (Gladden Bishop) was disfellowshiped, and received on his

professions of repentance, so often, that the Church at length

refused to admit him any more as a member. These apostates talk of

proof. Have we not proved Joseph Smith to be a prophet, a restorer,

standing at the head of this dispensation? Have we not proved the

priesthood which he placed upon others by the command of God?

"I see no ground, then, to prove or to investigate the calling of

an apostate, who has always been trying to impose upon this people.

_It is too late in the day for us to stop and inquire whether such

an outcast has the truth_.

"We have truths already developed, unfulfilled by us--unacted upon.

There are more truths poured out from the eternal fountain, already

than our minds can contain, or that we have places or preparations

to carry out. And yet we are called upon to prove--what? _Whether

an egg that was known to be rotten fifteen years ago, has really

improved by reason of age_!

"'_You are going to be destroyed_,' say they. '_Destruction awaits

this city_.' Well! what if we are? We are as able to be destroyed

as any people living. What care we whether we are destroyed or not?

These old tabernacles will die of themselves, if left alone.

"We have nothing to fear on that head, for we are as well prepared

to die as to live. One thing we have heard today, and I am glad

to hear it. We shall not be destroyed in the old way--as we have

been heretofore. We shall have a change in the manner, at least.

We shall probably be destroyed _standing, this time_, and not in

a _sitting_, or _lying position_. We can die as well as others

who are not as well prepared! I am glad that while we do live we

shall not submit to be yoked or saddled like a dumb ass. We shall

not stand still to see men, women, and children murdered, robbed,

plundered, and driven any more, as in the States heretofore. Nor

does God require it at our hands. That is the best news we have

heard today. * * *

"It is the policy not to wait till you are killed, but act on

the defensive while you still live. I have said enough on this

subject."--pp. 86-87.

The vicious malignancy of a depraved mind is made so apparent in this

contrast between your garbled quotations and the whole truth, that it

scarcely deserves further comment.

I have quoted quite extensively in order to show the reason for these

remarks of which you quote such brief and disjointed extracts. You

should remember that the Saints had but a short time before being

driven from their homes at the cannon's mouth, and were forced to

traverse a desert under the most trying circumstances to find a new

abode where they could rest in peace and call their souls their own.

When followed, as they were, by a miserable class that were determined

to again have them driven, where heaven only knows, in their might

and righteous indignation they firmly took their stand for home and

liberty. I for one, say that they were justified in this course, the

protection of their liberty, honor and lives. Had the threats of

their enemies here in Utah been carried out as they boasted that they

would be, and as they were carried out in Missouri and Illinois, then

Brigham Young and his people would have been as thoroughly justified in

unsheathing the bowie knife, to conquer or die, as were the patriots at

Lexington and Bunker Hill!

Home and liberty and life, with the right to worship God, are just as

dear to a "Mormon" as to members of any other denomination or even an

apostate "Mormon," and when the "Mormons" are persecuted, driven and

slain and forced to seek a home in the savage wilds, would any honest

man blame them if they declined to move again?

Why is it worse for "Utah Mormons" to defend themselves than for

"Mormons" at Crooked river and Nauvoo? Even the noble Prophet Joseph

Smith, when dragged from home and persecuted by wicked men, solemnly

demurred. Said he to the Saints at Nauvoo on the 30th day of June,

1843, after his escape from Missourian assassins:

"Before I will be dragged away again among my enemies for trial,

_I will spill the last drop of blood in my veins and will see all

my enemies in hell_! To bear it any longer would be a sin, and I

will not bear it any longer. Shall we bear it any longer? (one

universal, No! ran through all the vast assembly like a loud peal

of thunder.) * * * If mobs come upon you any more here, dung your

gardens with them. We don't want any excitement; but after we have

done all, we will rise up Washington-like and break off the hellish

yoke that oppresses us, and will not be mobbed!"

I have copied this from the manuscript history of the Prophet Joseph

Smith, as it was recorded at the time. I have learned also that it is

corroborated by the journal of Wilford Woodruff of the same date--June

30th, 1843.

UTAH NOT A FIELD OF BLOOD

You say, "I have read that which leads me to believe that under

Brighamism"--as you slurringly remark--"Utah was for years a land of

assassination and a field of blood," and then you ask me, "what of

the Mountain Meadows massacre,--the destruction of the Aiken party;

the dying confession of Bishop J. D. Lee; the Hickman butcheries; the

Danties?"

Well, that which you have read counts for but little when the source is

considered. Your case is most certainly desperate when you are forced

to accept the statements of murderers.

It's a strange thing that you and many of your elders accept all the

blood-curdling tales from Beadle, Stenhouse and other apostate sources

_when_ they happen to refer to Brigham Young and "Utah Mormons,"

and denounce the same sources when they refer to the Prophet Joseph

Smith. Yet, I repeat, the same class of charges--in many respects

identical--that you charge against Brigham Young, of murder, bloodshed,

adultery, and even Danties, were first made by bitter enemies of the

Church before the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that just such

falsehoods brought about the bitterness that resulted in his death.

You resort to sources that even the editor of your official paper

denounces as "Idle and vicious stories gathered from the awful files

of terrible tales told about the Mormons, by those at enmity with

them."--_Saints Herald_ 52:2.

If you desire to know the character of Christ do you accept the

statements of the Roman guard at the sepulchre? the Jew with

blood-stained hands who rejoices in his death? and the anti-Christian?

Wherein then, is your consistency in asking me to accept the testimony

of those whose hands are imbrued in blood, apostates and bitter enemies

of my people?

Very well then, I return your question. What about them? Pray tell,

what about the Mountain Meadows massacre? the Aiken party? the

confessions of Lee? (by the way, the fact that you call him a "Bishop"

proves the source of your information); what about Hickman and above

all, the Danties?

When Alfred Henry Lewis, in _Collier's Weekly_ of March 26, 1964,

stated, "Brigham Young invented his destroying angels, placed himself

at their head, and when a man rebelled had him murdered, if one fled

the fold, he was pursued and slain," he repeated one of the most

colossal falsehoods ever uttered. Nor is that the only falsehood in his

article you are pleased to quote.

Brigham Young was _not_ a man of blood. The "Mormon" people were _not_

guilty of the Mountain Meadows massacre.[2] There was no destruction

of an Aiken party. Hickman and Lee are not worth the mention; and the

Danties! Had you not better read Church history of 1838? In Utah there

never were destroying angels or Danties, except in the imagination of

bitter anti-"Mormons" and I am satisfied that Mr. R. C. Evans knows

that fact.

CHARACTER OF THE "MORMONS"

In answer to your many charges about Utah and the "Mormons," I desire

to refer to credible references from witnesses who understood the truth

and were bold enough to express it.

Last winter there was a census taken of the Utah Penitentiary

and the Salt Lake City and county prisons with the following

result:--In Salt Lake City there are about 75 Mormons to 25

non-Mormons; in Salt Lake County there are about 80 Mormons to

20 non-Mormons; yet in the city prison there were 29 convicts,

all non-Mormons. In the county prison there were 6 convicts all

non-Mormons. The jailer stated that the county convicts for the

five years past were all anti-Mormons except _three_! * * *

Out of the 200 saloon, billiard, bowling alley and pool table

keepers not over a dozen even profess to be Mormons. All of

the bagnios and other disreputable concerns in the territory

are run and sustained by non-Mormons. Ninety-eight per cent of

the gamblers in Utah are of the same element. * * * Of the 250

towns and villages in Utah, over 200 have no "gaudy sepulchre of

departed virtue," and these two hundred and odd towns are almost

exclusively Mormon in population. Of the suicides committed in Utah

ninety odd per cent are non-Mormons, and of the Utah homicides and

infanticides over 80 per cent are perpetrated by the 17 per cent of

"outsiders."--Phil Robinson, in _Sinners and Saints_, p. 72.

The Logan police force is a good-tempered looking young man.

There is another to help him, but if they had not something

else to do they would either have to keep arresting each other,

in order to pass the time, or else combine to hunt gophers and

chipmunks.--_Sinners and Saints_, p. 142.

Whence have the public derived their opinions about Mormonism?

From _anti-Mormons_ only. I have ransacked the literature of the

subject, and yet I really could not tell any one where to go for

an impartial book about Mormonism, later in date than Burton's

"City of the Saints," published in 1862. * * * But put Burton on

one side and I think I can defy any one to name another book about

the Mormons worthy of honest respect. From that truly _awful_

book, "The History of the Saints," published by one Bennet (even

an anti-Mormon has styled him "the greatest rascal that ever came

to the west") in 1842, down to Stenhouse's in 1873, there is not,

to my knowledge a single Gentile work before the public that is

not utterly unreliable from distortion of facts. Yet it is from

these books--for there are no others--that the American public has

acquired nearly all its ideas about the people of Utah.--_Sinners

and Saints_, p. 245.

And in relation to opposing evidence, almost every book that has

been put forth respecting the people of Utah by one not a Mormon,

is full of calumny, each author apparently endeavoring to surpass

his predecessor in the libertinism of abuse. Most of these are

written in a sensational style, and for the purpose of deriving

profit by pandering to a vitiated public taste, and are wholly

unreliable as to facts.--_Bancroft's History of Utah_, preface page

7.

It is only fair to state that no Gentile, even the unprejudiced,

who are rare aves, however long he may live or intimately he may

be connected with Mormons, can expect to see anything but the

superficies. * * *

The Mormons have been represented, and are generally believed to

be, an intolerant race. I found the reverse far nearer the fact.

The best proof of this is that there is hardly one anti-Mormon

publication, however untruthful, violent, or scandalous, which

I did not find in Great Salt Lake City.--Burton's _City of the

Saints_, p. 203.

I have not yet heard the single charge against them as a community,

against their habitual purity of life, their integrity of dealing,

their toleration of religious differences in opinion, their regard

for the laws, or their devotion to the Constitutional government

under which we live, that I do not from my own observation, or the

testimony of others know to be unfounded.--General Thomas L. Kane,

U. S. A., _The Mormons_, p. 83.

The Mormons are sober, industrious and thrifty.--Bishop Spaulding,

of the Episcopalian Church, in the _Forum_, March, 1887.

Had the Mormons been a low, corrupt or shiftless people they never

would or could have done what they did in Utah. * * * When they

controlled their own city of Salt Lake it contained no saloons,

gambling houses or places of ill repute, and when the town had

grown to be a goodly city order was kept by two constables. If by

their fruits we may know them, the Mormons deserve our confidence

and praise.--_The Brooklyn Eagle_, editorial of Aug. 12, 1897.

I shall not arraign the Mormon people as wanting in comparison with

other people in religious devotion, virtue, honesty, sobriety,

industry, and the graces and qualities that adorn, beautify

and bless life.--Caleb W. West, Governor of Utah (and a strong

anti-Mormon) in report to Secretary of the Interior for 1888.

I know the people of the east have judged the Mormons unjustly.

They have many traits worthy of admiration. I know them to be

honest, faithful, prayerful workers.--D. S. Tuttle, Bishop

Episcopalian Church.

I never met a people so free from sensualism and immorality of

every kind as the Mormons are. Their habits of life are a thousand

per cent superior to those who denounce them so bitterly.--Mrs.

Olive N. Robinson. (I recommend this to you.)

I assure you there are many others of equal force but this should be

sufficient to prove the scandalous effusions false that you profess to

believe true.

GAGGING AT A KNAT

I am glad you profess to believe the Bible. There is one other

thing which appears strange to me, that is, why you are continually

denouncing Brigham Young and "Utah Mormonism," and calling Utah a

"land of assassination and a field of blood," because vile men without

conscientious scruples have accused the people of many false and lurid

tales of blood, and at the same time with sanctimonious countenance and

upturned eyes you swallow the following without a gulp:

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts. * * * Now go up and smite Amalek,

and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but

slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel

and ass." I Samuel 15:3 (I. T.)

Haven't you swallowed the camel and gagged at his tail?

THE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT

Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. _What

is that doctrine_? Unadulterated if you please, laying aside the

pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been

made. It is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind

may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

This salvation is two-fold; General,--that which comes to all men

irrespective of a belief in Christ--and Individual,--that which man

merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws

and ordinances of the Gospel. But man may commit certain grievous

sins--according to his light and knowledge--that will place him beyond

the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved

he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone--so far as in his

power lies--for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain

circumstances will not avail.

Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe

in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ! This is the doctrine

you are pleased to call the "blood atonement of _Brighamism_." This is

the doctrine of Christ our _Redeemer_, who died for us. This is the

doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it.

In whose stead did Christ die? I wish your church members could be fair

enough to discuss this subject on _its merits_.

I again recommend you to a careful reading of the quotations in my

open letter. You will find them as follows: Book of Mormon,--II Nephi

9:35. Alma 1:13, 14, and 42:19. Bible,--Genesis 9:12, 13, (I. T.) Luke

11:50. Hebrews 9:22 and 10:26-29. I John 3:15 and 5:16. Doctrine and

Covenants,--87:7. 101:80. 42:18, 19, 79. (Utah edition.)

To these I will add:

"Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by

the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against

any person to cause him to die.

Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer,

which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death.

So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood

it defileth the land; and the land cannot be cleansed of the

blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed

it."--Numbers 35:30, 31, 33. (I. T.)[3]

Do you want a few references of where men were righteously slain to

atone for their sins? What about the death of Nehor? (Alma 1:15)

Zemnariah and his followers (III Nephi 4:27-28). What about Er and

Onan, whom the Lord slew? (Gen. 38:7, 10), of Nadab and Abihu? (Lev.

10:2) and the death of Achan? (Joshua 7:25.)

Were not these righteously slain to atone for their sins? And it was of

this class of cases that President Young referred in his discourse you

misquote (_Journal of Discourses_ 4:220). He tells us so, in the same

discourse in the portion which you _did not quote_. It is:

"Now take the wicked, and I can refer you to where the Lord had to slay

every soul of the Israelites that went out of Egypt except Caleb and

Joshua. He slew them by the hand of their enemies, by the plague and

by the sword. Why? Because he loved them and promised Abraham he would

save them."

POLYGAMY

In using the term "polygamy" in reference to the principle that was

taught and practiced by the Saints, I desire it distinctly understood

that I use it in the sense of a man having more than one wife.

Polygamy, in the sense of plurality of husbands and of wives never was

practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah or

elsewhere; but Celestial marriage--including a plurality of wives--was

introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and was practiced more generally

by the saints under the administration of President Brigham Young.

You say that you have no evidence that those men, _viz_. Lyman Wight,

James J. Strang, Gladden Bishop, William Smith and others that I

mentioned to you "practiced _polygamy_" before plural marriage was

"introduced" (as claimed by you) by Brigham Young. You said polygamy

was "introduced" eight years after the Prophet's death by Brigham

Young. If so, then why did these men practice it before that time? I

was satisfied that you would not exert yourself in seeking for this

knowledge and tried to help you find the information.

POLYGAMY IN THE "FACTIONS"

In a letter written by the President of the Reorganized church by Mr.

Joseph Davis of Wales, dated Lamonia, Oct. 13, 1899, I read:

"Nearly all the factions into which the church broke had plural

marriage in some form. None in the form instituted by President

Young. Sidney Rigdon had one form practiced by but a few, and that

spasmodically, as an outburst of religious fervor rather than as a

settled practice. William Smith had a sort of Priestess Lodge, in

which it was alleged there was a manifestation of licentiousness.

This he denied, and I never had actual proof of it. Gladden Bishop

taught something like it, but I believe he was himself the only

practioner. James J. Strang had a system something like Mohamet,

four I think, being allowed the king. Lyman Wight had a system but

it had no very extended range. President Young's system you may

know of."

It is true that William Smith denied that he taught "polygamy" but that

he practiced plural marriage he cannot deny. Jason W. Briggs said he

(William) did, and that is why Mr. Briggs left his church. Plaintiff's

Abstract, Temple Lot suit, p. 395. Hist. of Reorg. Ch. vol. 3:200 and

_The Messenger_, vol. 2. William entered into plural marriage in the

Prophet's day and his wives lived here in Utah. They are Precilla M.

Smith, Sarah Libby and Hannah Libby. One of these is still living.

The third volume of your church history says of Lyman Wight:

"Lyman Wight lived and died an honorable man, respected well by

those who knew him best. The only thing that can be urged against

his character is that about 1845 or 1846 he entered into the

practice of polygamy, but we have seen no record of any teaching of

his upon the subject."

The fact is that Lyman Wight entered into that relation before the time

here mentioned. Affidavits in this regard can be produced but it will

be unnecessary.

That John E. Page practiced "polygamy" I have the testimony of his

wife, Mrs. Mary Eaton of Independence, who told me and others, in

August 1904, that she _gave her husband_, John E. Page, other wives.

These men did not follow Brigham Young, but denounced him, yet they

practiced plural marriage and did not get that doctrine from him.

THE TESTIMONY OF A BOGUS WIFE

The "testimony" you submit from President Young's "legal wife" is

spurious. It matters not if you did receive the "information" from

your uncle. The poor man was tricked and deceived. Bogus "wives" and

"daughters" of President Young have "worked" the public before. Mary

Ann Angel Young, President Young's legal wife, was not in Colorado in

1860 and 1861. She never was divorced and died in this city true to

her husband, his family and the faith, on the 27th day of June, 1882.

(_News_, July 5, 1882.) So much for this "bogus" testimony.

TESTIMONY IMPEACHED

The testimony of T. B. H. and Fanny Stenhouse is sufficiently impeached

in the _Saints' Herald_, vol. 52, p. 2; 20, p. 602, and _Sinners and

Saints_, p. 245. The woman's bitterness would condemn her writings.

However I will mention one statement--you make Mrs. Stenhouse say:

"It is reported by Fanny Stenhouse and many others, that Joseph

Smith said, 'If ever the Church had the misfortune to be led by Bro.

Brigham, he would lead it to hell.'" She gives this as a rumor that is

"reported," so do the "many others" who are mostly from your church.

Oh, yes, I have heard of this before. But do you know where the report

originated? It originated with the apostate and would-be assassin,

Robert D. Foster, who threatened the Prophet Joseph's life in 1844,

and who was one of the incorporators and advocates of the notorious

_Nauvoo Expositor_, and one of the chief actors in bringing about the

martyrdom, June 27, 1844. In a toadying letter to your president, dated

February 14, 1874, he said the prophet "remarked, in the presence of

Mr. Law, Bishop Knight, John P. Greene, Reynolds Cahoon, and some

others, that if ever Brigham Young became the leader of the Church, he

would lead them down to hell."

MARVELOUS GROWTH OF THE CHURCH

I decline to accept the statements of such a character; besides,

President Young did not lead the Church to hell, but preserved

it, and under his direction it grew, expanded, and accomplished a

wonderful, even a miraculous work. In the reclamation of the arid

west, the permanent establishment of prosperous communities in the

desert wilds, and for their unity, strength, and industrial and

temporal independence, the "Mormon" people are today the marvel, if

not the admiration of the thinking world. They came here with nothing

but the good will of God. They began in poverty, and "having almost

nothing to invest," says Mr. William E. Symthe in _The Conquest of

Arid America_, "except the labor of their hands and brains, and that

all they have expended in a period of fifty years for all classes of

improvements--from the first shanty to the last turret of the last

temple--came primarily from the soil."

Again he says in the same work:

TESTIMONY OF MR. SMYTHE

Nowhere else has the common prosperity been reared upon firmer

foundations. Nowhere else are institutions more firmly buttressed

or better capable of resisting violent economic revolutions. The

thunder cloud that passed over the land in 1893, leaving a path of

commercial ruin from the Atlantic to the Pacific, was powerless to

close the door of a single Mormon store, factory or bank. Strong

in prosperity, the co-operative industrial and commercial system

stood immovable in the hour of widespread disaster. The solvency

of these industries is scarcely more striking than the solvency

of the farmers from whom they draw their strength. No other

governor, either in the West or in the East, is able to say what

the Honorable Heber M. Wells said in assuming the chief magistracy

of the new state in January, 1896, "We have in Utah," said the

young governor. "19,816 farms, and 17,584 of them are absolutely

free from incumbrance." A higher percentage in school attendance

and lower percentage of illiterates than even in the State of

Massachusetts, is another of Utah's proud records. P. 71.

THE GUIDANCE OF JEHOVAH

Without the divine guidance and the constant watchcare of Jehovah

over the destinies of the "Mormon" pioneers, with Brigham Young at

their head, the West today would be but a barren wilderness. Under the

leadership of Brigham Young the "Mormon" people prospered, and he left

them in a better condition temporally and physically, and spiritually

more united and more firmly established in the faith than they ever

were before. Where among the so-called "factions" can you point to

one that has accomplished the hundredth part of what the followers of

Brigham Young have accomplished? They have all practically disappeared

but one--gone to their destruction. And the one that remains will

dissolve and disappear as surely as the sun shines. You cannot fight

the work of God and prosper.

WILLIAM MARKS

The testimony of William Marks--a man who was out of harmony with the

Prophet before the latter's death! This testimony of William Marks

sounds too suspicious, given as it was, when it was, and describing an

alleged conversation which never could have taken place. "The reader

will please notice," said David Whitmer in his _Address_ (p. 41), "this

fact in regard to William Marks' statement; and that is, the time when

Brother Joseph told him that polygamy must be put down in the Church."

That time was a "few days" before the Prophet's death.

True, the Prophet was no "fool" (_Herald_ 51:74), and such a

"conversation" as this related by William Marks would have stamped him

"foolish, irrational and a moral suicide," _because_ he could not bring

a charge against others for that for which he was himself responsible.

The Prophet had plural wives, and had officiated in the ceremony of the

sealing of plural wives to others. I have conversed with the principals

in these cases, and know that they told the truth. Furthermore, Mr.

Marks' testimony condemns itself. He proves--if he proves anything at

all--that the Prophet was responsible for this doctrine. This thought

is in harmony with the early teachings of the original elders of the

Reorganization, for the time was when even your elders acknowledged

that the Prophet received the revelation on celestial (including

plural) marriage. On this point David Whitmer says:

As time rolled on, many of the Reorganization saw that to

_continue_ to acknowledge that Brother Joseph received the

revelation would bring bitter persecution upon themselves, as the

public feeling at that time was very bitter. * * * The leaders

of the Reorganized church, after a time, began to suppress their

opinions concerning this matter. They would answer the question

when asked about it "_I do not know whether Joseph Smith received

the revelation or not_."

THE "SAINTS' HERALD" A WITNESS OF "POLYGAMY"

Now, if it is true--and I claim it is--that the leaders of the

Reorganized church acknowledged that the Prophet received the

revelation and practiced that principle, there must be some proof. Turn

to the first volume of the _True L.D.S. Herald_ and read the editorial

on pages 6 to 11. It is on polygamy. After trying to explain the reason

why the Prophet taught and practiced this doctrine, the editor said:

And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I, the

Lord, have deceived the prophet, and I will stretch out my hand

upon him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. *

* * We have here the facts as they have transpired and as they will

continue to transpire in relation to this subject. The death of the

prophet is one fact that has been realized, although he abhorred

and repented of this iniquity before his death. Page 9.

And on page 27:

He (Joseph Smith) caused the Revelation to be burned, and when

he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms

of his enemies, he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At

that time he also said that if it had not been for that accursed

spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that. By his

conduct at that time he proved the sincerity of his repentance,

and of his profession as a prophet. If Abraham[4] and Jacob, by

repentance, can obtain salvation and exaltation, so can Joseph

Smith.

Mark you, we have the evidence of the revelation from your own side and

you well remember that but _one_ could and did receive revelations. I

do not accept the apology of your editor; I do not believe that the

Prophet had the revelation burned, or called the doctrine accursed. My

faith in Joseph Smith is such that if he had the revelation--which your

witnesses declare he did--that it was from God as much as any other

revelation he received!

TESTIMONY OF JASON BRIGGS

Jason W. Briggs, one of the founders of your church, in the Temple Lot

suit, said:

I heard something about a revelation on polygamy, or plural

marriage, when I was in Nauvoo, in 1842. I heard there was one:

there was talk going on about it at that time, and continued to be;

but it was not called plural marriage; it was called sealing.

You ask me what I understood this sealing to be, at the time the

talk was going on. What I understood it to be was sealing a woman

to a man to be his wife, to be his wife hereafter, his wife in the

spirit world.

I was asked in my direct examination if I did not hear of the

doctrine of polygamy, etc., and I answered that I talked with

members with reference to sealing, and I understood that the

doctrine of sealing, was for eternity; it was sealing a man's wife

to him for eternity, or wives, either. Record pp. 349, 431, 505.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES WHITEHEAD

James Whitehead said:

There was an ordinance in the Church for sealing, as early as 1842

or 1843.

They would be married according to the law of God, not only for

time but for eternity as well.

These men were among the founders of your church.

SIDNEY RIGDON'S TESTIMONY

Sidney Rigdon, in a lengthy letter to his official paper, _The

Messenger and Advocate_, in 1845 declared that the Prophet was

responsible for the plural marriage doctrine, and said:

This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their

death, and was the thing which put them in the power of their

enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death. P. 475, vol. 2.

He says he "warned Joseph Smith and his family," and told them that

destruction would come upon them if they continued in their course.

ORIGINAL RECORDS OF PLURALITY OF WIVES

You "confidently affirm that there is not a single word in a single

sermon, lecture, statement, newspaper or Church publication _printed_

during the life of Joseph Smith, wherein he by word has endorsed the

doctrine of plurality of wives, not a single statement." Whether any

such statement was ever _printed_ in his lifetime or not I am not

prepared to say. But I do know of such evidence being recorded during

his lifetime, for I have seen it.

I have copied the following from the Prophet's manuscript record of

Oct. 5, 1843, and know it is genuine:

"Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching,

teaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for

according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last

days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom this

power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no

man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs

otherwise."

There is also at the Historian's office in this city, a Bible, which

I have before me, containing the record of the marriage of Melissa

Lott to the Prophet Joseph Smith, which was recorded at the time,

September 20, 1843. This Bible also contains the record of the sealing

of Cornelius P. and Parmelia Lott, parents of Melissa, which was

done by Patriarch Hyrum Smith in the Prophet's presence and with his

"seal" or sanction. The president of your church has seen this record,

and it matters not what he may say _now_ he _then_ acknowledged the

genuineness of the record.

The following is also copied from the journal of William Clayton which

is in the Historian's office:

May 1st, (1843) A.M. At the Temple. At 10 married Joseph to Lucy

Walker. P.M. at Prest. Joseph's; he has gone out with Woodsworth.

This is the same William Clayton who wrote the revelation at the

direction and from the dictation of the Prophet July 12, 1843. However,

this principle was first revealed to the Prophet several years before

that time, as you learned in your conversation with President Lorenzo

Snow, when you were in his office.

MORE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED

Right here we will consider the "evidence" you produce to show that

"Joseph Smith and the Church during his lifetime condemned polygamy

in the strongest terms." The testimony of the thirty-one witnesses

you "produce" was against the "secret wife system" of the vile John

C. Bennett who was excommunicated for betraying female virtue. This

Bennett system had nothing to do with the system of celestial marriage

introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and was no more like the

Prophet's doctrine than darkness is like daylight. The certificate

of these parties that you mention was given in October 1842 (T. & S.

3:939), nearly one year before the revelation on celestial marriage

was recorded. At that time the law of marriage in the Church was

that adopted in 1835, and was binding on all who had accepted the

higher law, and they were few in number.[5] The best proof that these

"witnesses" did not condemn the celestial marriage doctrine of the

prophet in this communication, is that out of the thirty-one, at least

sixteen have testified that the Prophet introduced that system. One of

this number of witnesses became the Prophet's wife, one performed a

marriage ceremony in which the Prophet was married to a plural wife,

and one other was a witness to such a marriage ceremony. At least six

testify that the Prophet taught them the principle of plural marriage

and the others, so far as I know, are not on record. That these

witnesses were the dupes of Brigham Young cannot truthfully be said,

for three of them left the Church and never followed Brigham Young, yet

they testify of these things.

The action of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, as recorded in the _Times

and Seasons_ (5:3), wherein Hyrum Brown was cut off the Church for

preaching polygamy and other false doctrines, was just and timely. The

same action would have been taken at any other period of the existence

of the Church. Polygamy never was a doctrine of the Church, and the

system introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith was not called by that

name in his day. Nor was the system of the Prophet the same as that of

Hyrum Brown; and if it had been, the ruling of the Prophet of October

5, 1843, would have cost Brown his standing in the Church, the polygamy

of Brown and John C. Bennett was of their own make. In relation to this

subject, I will quote from the _Life of John Taylor_, pages 223-224: